EGLL/LHR Temp. Closed?
Just an outsider here. Actually a sort-of outsider as our company (located near LHR) had several visitors from Scotland and the north yesterday, all of whom had grossly disorganised journeys home.
The incidents described are reasonably straightforward and do not lead to gross disorganisation elsewhere. How is it that about once a month something happening at LHR leads to cancellation of half the BA domestic programme for the rest of the day ?
Who allowed Rwy 23 to be closed (seemingly just to park a few more T4 aircraft) when the airport is in such a tight situation ?
Who allows things like the T5 construction cranes to impinge on the glidescope putting the opposite runway out of action for arrivals ? Goodness me it's an AIRPORT that BAA are running ! It's not as if alternative construction techniques are not possible.
Why are runway-impinging works not done at night ? Heathrow has it easier than most at that time, with little/no small-hours activity and 2 non-intersecting runways available anyway.
The incidents described are reasonably straightforward and do not lead to gross disorganisation elsewhere. How is it that about once a month something happening at LHR leads to cancellation of half the BA domestic programme for the rest of the day ?
Who allowed Rwy 23 to be closed (seemingly just to park a few more T4 aircraft) when the airport is in such a tight situation ?
Who allows things like the T5 construction cranes to impinge on the glidescope putting the opposite runway out of action for arrivals ? Goodness me it's an AIRPORT that BAA are running ! It's not as if alternative construction techniques are not possible.
Why are runway-impinging works not done at night ? Heathrow has it easier than most at that time, with little/no small-hours activity and 2 non-intersecting runways available anyway.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incidents described are reasonably straightforward and do not lead to gross disorganisation elsewhere. How is it that about once a month something happening at LHR leads to cancellation of half the BA domestic programme for the rest of the day ?
Who allowed Rwy 23 to be closed (seemingly just to park a few more T4 aircraft) when the airport is in such a tight situation
It's not as if alternative construction techniques are not possible.
Why are runway-impinging works not done at night
PPRuNe Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought Heathrow had no night time traffic for noise reasons, so it would hardly be very neighbourly to open a building site all the time the aircraft are not flying.
Isn't the type of structure being used at T5 supposed to reduce (not eliminate) the use of cranes over long periods by making sure that as much as possible was done on the ground before major structures were positioned?
Isn't the type of structure being used at T5 supposed to reduce (not eliminate) the use of cranes over long periods by making sure that as much as possible was done on the ground before major structures were positioned?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I in fact do it reasonably often, but to my own criteria, not my employers
I remember with some anxiety those 'blind followers' as you put it who would happily fly down to 30 mins total fuel remaining with nowhere else to go - 'cos the book says to do it!
I'm still not sure ATC know the truth?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<if an aircraft familiar with LHR (e.g. BM or BA) makes no statement or emergency call about his fuel state, what would an ATCO, from his training, "expect" the aircraft to be able to do in terms of go-around, diverting, further radar circuit(s) etc. from just before touchdown ?>>
Hi Nigel. ATC would expect the aircraft to make a standard missed approach and then be radar-vectored for a further approach. If the pilot wished to divert it would be impractical to issue a SID so, again, radar vectors would be employed to get it into the departure route.
In bad weather when crews are aware of their fuel problems they will usually warn ATC in advance that in the event of a go-around they would like to divert to xxx. ATC then usually issues them with the appropriate SID to use following the go-around.
Does that answer your questions?
Hi Nigel. ATC would expect the aircraft to make a standard missed approach and then be radar-vectored for a further approach. If the pilot wished to divert it would be impractical to issue a SID so, again, radar vectors would be employed to get it into the departure route.
In bad weather when crews are aware of their fuel problems they will usually warn ATC in advance that in the event of a go-around they would like to divert to xxx. ATC then usually issues them with the appropriate SID to use following the go-around.
Does that answer your questions?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD...
Thanks for the answer(s). In short, does not seem you "expect" aircraft to be able to "divert"?
Your reply concurs with the way I "play" it, in that if a GA will result in either a PAN or Mayday call (i.e. might or would result in landing off the second approach with less than reserves), then I will tell ATC e.g. shortly after leaving the hold.
As per diversions and SIDs etc., I do note our Flt Plans rely on a "SID to be flown". As you state, this is unlikely to occur, and so in the absence of other factors, I will aim to select and brief for an Altn that has the MAP at least taking me roughly in that direction. And as you say, if it gets tight / likely, would aim to pre-warn ATC....
Thanks for the answer(s). In short, does not seem you "expect" aircraft to be able to "divert"?
Your reply concurs with the way I "play" it, in that if a GA will result in either a PAN or Mayday call (i.e. might or would result in landing off the second approach with less than reserves), then I will tell ATC e.g. shortly after leaving the hold.
As per diversions and SIDs etc., I do note our Flt Plans rely on a "SID to be flown". As you state, this is unlikely to occur, and so in the absence of other factors, I will aim to select and brief for an Altn that has the MAP at least taking me roughly in that direction. And as you say, if it gets tight / likely, would aim to pre-warn ATC....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This ATC pilot thing is all about communication.
After the '87 gales there were numerous comments from pilots who suggested they were "not kept in the picture" regarding low level turbulence while sitting in the various Heathrow holds. In the old days P3 would have been removed from the loop to monitor the tower frequency in such conditions. But with a two crew operation that becomes more difficult. The comments made to the tower controller should have been passed to those contemplating an approach.
The other side of the coin is that the pilot has a responsibility to keep the controller "up to speed" with regard to his reduced capabilities (fuel, increased DH, Crosswind limit etc)
I remember Heathrow running with 9R closed and the total operation on 9L. The weather was fine and ourselves, like many others with an EAT, were committed to Heathrow. Our fuel state had been passed to the controller while we were holding but it seemed prudent, when changing to the tower and being informed that we were to continue our approach as there was a Concorde lining up after the preceding landing traffic to "keep him in the picture as well".
"Speedbird 123 understand to continue with a departing Concorde shortly to line up.. Be aware due to our (legal) fuel state in the event of a Go-around we will declare an emergency and carrying out a visual 1500 feet circuit left hand". Need I say that the Concorde's line-up was cancelled! Hopefully our call was appreciated by the tower controller!
After the '87 gales there were numerous comments from pilots who suggested they were "not kept in the picture" regarding low level turbulence while sitting in the various Heathrow holds. In the old days P3 would have been removed from the loop to monitor the tower frequency in such conditions. But with a two crew operation that becomes more difficult. The comments made to the tower controller should have been passed to those contemplating an approach.
The other side of the coin is that the pilot has a responsibility to keep the controller "up to speed" with regard to his reduced capabilities (fuel, increased DH, Crosswind limit etc)
I remember Heathrow running with 9R closed and the total operation on 9L. The weather was fine and ourselves, like many others with an EAT, were committed to Heathrow. Our fuel state had been passed to the controller while we were holding but it seemed prudent, when changing to the tower and being informed that we were to continue our approach as there was a Concorde lining up after the preceding landing traffic to "keep him in the picture as well".
"Speedbird 123 understand to continue with a departing Concorde shortly to line up.. Be aware due to our (legal) fuel state in the event of a Go-around we will declare an emergency and carrying out a visual 1500 feet circuit left hand". Need I say that the Concorde's line-up was cancelled! Hopefully our call was appreciated by the tower controller!
Hand Solo :
Thank you for your input, but it seems that if it's not one thing at Heathrow it's another - both runways closed this month (though not for long apparently), LVPs last month, high crosswinds the month before with increased spacing ..... etc. And always the domestic schedule shot for the rest of the day.
Regarding the stands at the end of 23 which had to be cleared, whoever authorised them in the first place ? And the T5 overheight cranes ? Sure it saves BAA costs. But whatever are the CAA airfield licencing people doing about all this ? Nothing it seems, their days being too fully occupied with lining up CBEs for each other.
Thank you for your input, but it seems that if it's not one thing at Heathrow it's another - both runways closed this month (though not for long apparently), LVPs last month, high crosswinds the month before with increased spacing ..... etc. And always the domestic schedule shot for the rest of the day.
Regarding the stands at the end of 23 which had to be cleared, whoever authorised them in the first place ? And the T5 overheight cranes ? Sure it saves BAA costs. But whatever are the CAA airfield licencing people doing about all this ? Nothing it seems, their days being too fully occupied with lining up CBEs for each other.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel.. As you know, I'm retired so it would be as well to obtain current info and hopefully one of my ex-colleagues will comment. However......
<<In short, does not seem you "expect" aircraft to be able to "divert"?>>
Not wholly sure what you mean. Go-arounds are fairly commonplace and ATC treats them all as "expecting" to be repositioned for landing at Heathrow unless the pilot says otherwise. A diversion to another airfield can be accomplished by ATC with the minimum effort from anywhere in the circuit. But... if you mean "divert" to the other runway then you should be aware that this may not be a possibility.
Procedures may well have changed but I always assumed that it was inappropriate to issue a SID to a go-around (remember we're forever being reminded about pilot "workload"!). I always worked on the basis that a diversion of a late go-around just got radar vectors but someone who stated that he might divert after a go-around (LVPs) got a SID well in advance.
<<In short, does not seem you "expect" aircraft to be able to "divert"?>>
Not wholly sure what you mean. Go-arounds are fairly commonplace and ATC treats them all as "expecting" to be repositioned for landing at Heathrow unless the pilot says otherwise. A diversion to another airfield can be accomplished by ATC with the minimum effort from anywhere in the circuit. But... if you mean "divert" to the other runway then you should be aware that this may not be a possibility.
Procedures may well have changed but I always assumed that it was inappropriate to issue a SID to a go-around (remember we're forever being reminded about pilot "workload"!). I always worked on the basis that a diversion of a late go-around just got radar vectors but someone who stated that he might divert after a go-around (LVPs) got a SID well in advance.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two points:
1)
BA shorthaul suffers disproportionate knockons from disruputions because the aircraft, tech crew and cabin crew are all rostered separately. Crew and aircraft seldom stay together for the next sector out of LHR . This is compounded by cabin crews minimum turnaround time agreements which illogically and expensively treat LHR differently from any other point on the network.
2) Never mind 3 runways, the published 1947/48 plans for LHR showed nine runways, six south of the A 4 and 3 in a triangle between the A 4 and where the M4 now is. 2 of the southerly 6 would probably have had to go to make way for the Central Terminal Area, but it was still a pretty impressive collection. Harmondsworth and Sipson were scheduled to disappear via compulsory purchase orders. All of this was scrapped around 1954 as the bureaucrats and politicians had by then decided that aviation needs would never grow that much and they would rather spend the money on the NHS. How times dont change.
1)
BA shorthaul suffers disproportionate knockons from disruputions because the aircraft, tech crew and cabin crew are all rostered separately. Crew and aircraft seldom stay together for the next sector out of LHR . This is compounded by cabin crews minimum turnaround time agreements which illogically and expensively treat LHR differently from any other point on the network.
2) Never mind 3 runways, the published 1947/48 plans for LHR showed nine runways, six south of the A 4 and 3 in a triangle between the A 4 and where the M4 now is. 2 of the southerly 6 would probably have had to go to make way for the Central Terminal Area, but it was still a pretty impressive collection. Harmondsworth and Sipson were scheduled to disappear via compulsory purchase orders. All of this was scrapped around 1954 as the bureaucrats and politicians had by then decided that aviation needs would never grow that much and they would rather spend the money on the NHS. How times dont change.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM,
Extra stands v 23: All down to cost.
Extra revenue gained by BAA through more stands = x
Cost to BAA of keeping 23 as an active runway = y
Cost to BAA of those two days a year when 23 would have been used but without which LHR now goes SNAFU = z
Revenue x is very significant.
Cost y is astronomical
Cost z is, relatively, not very much at all.
The same case applies to de-icing facilities, and many other examples.
Extra stands v 23: All down to cost.
Extra revenue gained by BAA through more stands = x
Cost to BAA of keeping 23 as an active runway = y
Cost to BAA of those two days a year when 23 would have been used but without which LHR now goes SNAFU = z
Revenue x is very significant.
Cost y is astronomical
Cost z is, relatively, not very much at all.
The same case applies to de-icing facilities, and many other examples.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The construction of a taxiway is very much different from that of a runway. It's much cheaper to build and maintain a taxiway than a runway. Rwy 23 has been designated part of twy alpha for a little while now according to the aerodrome chart in the air pilot. Officially 23 is still available but if it costs 1 dep and 1 arr slot to let something land on 23, who would let that happen these days?
Also there's bound to be legal wrangles when they start planning for the 3rd (4th in theory) runway. I suspect 23 will remain on the book until it is built so they can say "hey we havent added another runway, we've simply relocated 23 to become the new 27R"!!!
Also there's bound to be legal wrangles when they start planning for the 3rd (4th in theory) runway. I suspect 23 will remain on the book until it is built so they can say "hey we havent added another runway, we've simply relocated 23 to become the new 27R"!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
NoD,
This atco would have thought that if nothing is said on the r/t to indicate otherwise that anyone making a missed approach should be able to fly to their designated alternate and then hold there for a certain amount of time (15mins?) before making an approach?
Woodpecker's reply is also indicative of another concern of mine. It could be called single plane syndrome...each pilot thinking "well I'm right down to minimums now but it's okay, if it all goes pear shaped I'll just call pan or mayday".
Fair enough, but how many might be thinking it at the same time? After the first one calls pan and comes in out of sequence he knocks back everyone else in the queue a bit so someone else calls pan, againe knocking back everyone else and so on. Traffic calling pan or mayday will also be given extra spacing ahead on final approach, for obvious reasons, increasing the overall delay even more. It's a cumulative effect that just gets worse.
One day this situation is going to turn round and seriously bite us.
WF.
This atco would have thought that if nothing is said on the r/t to indicate otherwise that anyone making a missed approach should be able to fly to their designated alternate and then hold there for a certain amount of time (15mins?) before making an approach?
Woodpecker's reply is also indicative of another concern of mine. It could be called single plane syndrome...each pilot thinking "well I'm right down to minimums now but it's okay, if it all goes pear shaped I'll just call pan or mayday".
Fair enough, but how many might be thinking it at the same time? After the first one calls pan and comes in out of sequence he knocks back everyone else in the queue a bit so someone else calls pan, againe knocking back everyone else and so on. Traffic calling pan or mayday will also be given extra spacing ahead on final approach, for obvious reasons, increasing the overall delay even more. It's a cumulative effect that just gets worse.
One day this situation is going to turn round and seriously bite us.
WF.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes..... one point I meant to mention. Data presented to controllers does not routinely include info about alternates. Short of asking the pilot the only way that the controller could obtain this information would be from the FPL, which could take a long time.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WF...
Thanks for that answer... When an aircraft, say in the LAM hold, nnow uses the totally legitimate ability to "dispense" with the Altn, what succinct RT phrase can we use to ATC to indicate this? It's nothing formal, but, like you, it can only help that ATC, and other aircraft are aware... All will get a "feel" for when numerous aircraft are getting into this situation 
I can only agree that "one day" there will be a nasty. Current "rules", leaving aside airmanship, mean that some crews think nothing of adjusting their plan to land with only just over reserves, and say nothing. Effect is that on requested to GA, the reply will be "GA Mayday", and I cannot imagine ATC will be too amused
I for one do think this through, and have my Plan B & C up my sleeve. Not "legal" in the extreme, but will see my aircraft & PAX safe. The problems I see are that:
Couldn't agree more.
1 final point. All this is regulated by the CAA. In my spare time I fly Jet Provosts from a 2 runway airfield (albeit they intersect and 1 is a bit short). Under the CAA rules I must make my final landing with sufficient fuel to divert - this just under a "Permit to Fly" so Day VMC only. The next day I jump in an public transport operated Airbus, and the rules allow me some hour+ out to "commit" myself + 100+ PAX to a single runway in CAT3A with no possibility of diversion. That doesn't add up to me, more so when you consider the JP has bang seats !!
This atco would have thought that if nothing is said on the r/t to indicate otherwise that anyone making a missed approach should be able to fly to their designated alternate and then hold there for a certain amount of time (15mins?) before making an approach?
I can only agree that "one day" there will be a nasty. Current "rules", leaving aside airmanship, mean that some crews think nothing of adjusting their plan to land with only just over reserves, and say nothing. Effect is that on requested to GA, the reply will be "GA Mayday", and I cannot imagine ATC will be too amused
I for one do think this through, and have my Plan B & C up my sleeve. Not "legal" in the extreme, but will see my aircraft & PAX safe. The problems I see are that:
- A lot of people seem to just follow the rules blindly e.g. "commit" to a single airfield (runway) even in, say CAT3A [this is permitted!]
- Don't see a need to think one step ahead e.g. "what if we GA", and then where appropriate pass on that plan e.g. tell ATC "in the event of a GA we will be calling P / M due fuel"
- The lack of liasion between the operator side (i.e. airlines / crews) and the ATC side about what fuel levels we now can/do plan to land with, and indeed lots of pressure from the airlines to almost routinely do so
One day this situation is going to turn round and seriously bite us.
1 final point. All this is regulated by the CAA. In my spare time I fly Jet Provosts from a 2 runway airfield (albeit they intersect and 1 is a bit short). Under the CAA rules I must make my final landing with sufficient fuel to divert - this just under a "Permit to Fly" so Day VMC only. The next day I jump in an public transport operated Airbus, and the rules allow me some hour+ out to "commit" myself + 100+ PAX to a single runway in CAT3A with no possibility of diversion. That doesn't add up to me, more so when you consider the JP has bang seats !!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCOs/HD - if you look at the links in my edited post of 12/5, it would appear wise to 'expec't at least one MAYDAY if a g/a occurs?
Does this help with your planning?
In the case of the BA 747 into MAN, we COULD have had the situation where a company minded Nigel was on final to land with 30 mins fuel remaining (ie no diversion fuel) and ordered to g/a for the MAYDAY jumbo behind...................... oh what fun we had.....
Let me see. Off to LPL with Nigel (1) on a MAYDAY with 'not much' left, next a/c after the jumbo broken off the approach (now on a MAYDAY) in case 747 blocks the runway, next one into the hold, now short of fuel, on a PAN. Anyone want to continue the story?
Does this help with your planning?
In the case of the BA 747 into MAN, we COULD have had the situation where a company minded Nigel was on final to land with 30 mins fuel remaining (ie no diversion fuel) and ordered to g/a for the MAYDAY jumbo behind...................... oh what fun we had.....
Let me see. Off to LPL with Nigel (1) on a MAYDAY with 'not much' left, next a/c after the jumbo broken off the approach (now on a MAYDAY) in case 747 blocks the runway, next one into the hold, now short of fuel, on a PAN. Anyone want to continue the story?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....was on final to land with 30 mins fuel remaining (ie no diversion fuel)
I can't imagine other types are far off this either...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a slightly different,but still relevant subject. Just imagine the holding at LHR is 20 minutes (as little as that I hear you say) and the centre is advised that say,Stansted/Gatwick,has a closed runway. Would you expect ATC to make general broadcasts-the reason being many of you would have Stansted/Gatwick as an alternate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
NoD,
I've been working when a/c in the hold have said words along the lines of "be advised we are now committed to landing at Heathrow"..."roger" was my reply because I couldn't think of anything else to say.
Here we get into Catch 22 again. If you tell me you're committed to landing at Heathrow, there are big delays for whatever reason but the wx is such we can be doing 2.5nm spacing, would you expect to be given more room in front of you so that you're fairly aassured of a landing clearance but with the consequence of knocking back the EAT of everyone else still holding and so making life more uncomfortable for them?
If you get extra room you knock back everyone else by a couple of minutes but you probably land, if you don't get extra room and have to go around and call mayday we'll be breaking all the traffic on intermediate and final approach off so that you can come back in with minimum delay and everyone else gets knocked back probably 10 or so minutes and the situation escalates.
Same situation applies in that if a lot of aircraft start telling us they're committing so we get a "feel" for it...what sort of position does that put us in? We've got to keep landing at the minimum interval to keep the landing rate up and the delays to a minimum whilst knowing that the first missed approach is likely to cause serious problems for a number of a/c.
Hopefully I'll be on a day off when the sh
t starts to fly
WF.
Thanks for that answer... When an aircraft, say in the LAM hold, nnow uses the totally legitimate ability to "dispense" with the Altn, what succinct RT phrase can we use to ATC to indicate this? It's nothing formal, but, like you, it can only help that ATC, and other aircraft are aware... All will get a "feel" for when numerous aircraft are getting into this situation
Here we get into Catch 22 again. If you tell me you're committed to landing at Heathrow, there are big delays for whatever reason but the wx is such we can be doing 2.5nm spacing, would you expect to be given more room in front of you so that you're fairly aassured of a landing clearance but with the consequence of knocking back the EAT of everyone else still holding and so making life more uncomfortable for them?
If you get extra room you knock back everyone else by a couple of minutes but you probably land, if you don't get extra room and have to go around and call mayday we'll be breaking all the traffic on intermediate and final approach off so that you can come back in with minimum delay and everyone else gets knocked back probably 10 or so minutes and the situation escalates.
Same situation applies in that if a lot of aircraft start telling us they're committing so we get a "feel" for it...what sort of position does that put us in? We've got to keep landing at the minimum interval to keep the landing rate up and the delays to a minimum whilst knowing that the first missed approach is likely to cause serious problems for a number of a/c.
Hopefully I'll be on a day off when the sh
t starts to fly WF.